No,NO,and again NO : the only thing that matters is to win,and if being humane means we do not win (=we are losing) ,we must throw away this humanity.

We do know what ISIS is doing where it is the master and we should do EVERYTHING to prevent this to happen in Europe,US,.......EVERYTHING .And if we had not handled ISIS with kid gloves, the situation would be different : we would be winning and not losing.

So the ends justify the means?

October 2nd, 2015

Tuan

Quote:

Originally Posted by lljadw

No,NO,and again NO : the only thing that matters is to win,and if being humane means we do not win (=we are losing) ,we must throw away this humanity.

We do know what ISIS is doing where it is the master and we should do EVERYTHING to prevent this to happen in Europe,US,.......EVERYTHING .And if we had not handled ISIS with kid gloves, the situation would be different : we would be winning and not losing.

I agree with you all that we have to prevent everything what ISIS is doing, no doubt about it, but how? The methods that you or the law enforcement agencies are proposing doesn't seem to work. Following article is a testament to why we have to be "humane" to prevent the growth of ISIS.

“In many instances, these people have espoused these opinions for a long time without ever actually taking action beyond just speaking about them,” says John Robbins, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

Research by his organization shows that when the suspect is a Muslim, authorities tend to downplay potential contributing factors such as mental illness, he says.

“The FBI is really good at catching its own terrorists,” says Yasir Qadhi, a leading Islamic scholar in the US and a professor at Rhodes College in Memphis.

Professor Qadhi says sting operations have further alienated large segments of an American Muslim population already reeling from widespread discrimination, surveillance, and racial profiling by US authorities since the 911 attacks.

Among Muslims, Qadhi says, each new sting operation is not seen as an effort to protect people from violence. Instead, it is viewed as further evidence of government hostility toward Muslims.

“When you set up a 17-year-old kid and you go and you wire your informants and you rile him up and then you catch him in the act, you’ve lost the trust of an entire community with that one stupid act,” he says.

In one respect, what the undercover agents are doing is finishing the work of the IS recruiters who were methodically grooming and radicalizing their targets, experts say.

In essence, the FBI takes up where the radical recruiters left off, further pushing young Americans over the line toward violent extremism, not to benefit the IS group or its fledgling caliphate, but for the sake of winning a criminal conviction in federal court.

To those in the target’s family or his or her community who see this process up close, it is frightening and counterproductive, analysts say.

Family as 'early-warning system'

Friends and family members could be a natural early-warning system to identify signs of radicalization, says John Horgan, a psychologist and terrorism expert at Georgia State University.

“From the research I’ve done, we are finding that those kinds of issues don’t get reported because people are afraid of the consequences,” he says.

Years of suspicion, surveillance, and tough law-enforcement tactics in the war on terror have undercut any sense of trust between the Muslim community and the government.

“This is basic stuff,” Professor Horgan says. “It is community policing, it is outreach, it is building trust and figuring out what are the safe mechanisms through which people can report suspicions or call up an agency to say, ‘Hey, I think my child might be in danger of radicalization. What do I do?’ ”

The professor adds: “We haven’t seen that kind of thinking, we haven’t seen those kinds of resources being developed here [in the US].”

“Parents are placed in an untenable situation,” he adds. “Our strategy is devoid of early off ramps for diverting this kind of activity and that feeds a vicious cycle of mistrust, which we see in greater numbers of arrests,” he says. “It feeds the assumption that there is no real interest in stemming the tide of radicalization.”

There are a few innovative approaches under way in the US.

The US State Department runs a Twitter account called “Think AgainTurn Away” that tries to confront and dispute radical tweeters with counter tweets. There are pilot programs in Boston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles aimed at fostering greater cooperation and trust between law enforcement and the Muslim community. But many Muslims reject those programs as a veiled attempt to improve government surveillance.

Indeed, the primary thrust of the US government’s anti-radicalization effort continues be surveillance, arrests, and imprisonment.

This is not exclusively a Muslim-American problem, but that is the one community most affected by it and it is the one community that is pushing back.

Salam Al-Marayati is president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. His organization is developing a community-based intervention program called the Safe Spaces Initiative. The group is seeking to set up pilot projects in 12 US cities.

“Safe Spaces is an alternative to heavy-handed law enforcement tactics,” Mr. Al-Marayati says. Rather than seeking to imprison them for 10 or 20 years, Safe Spaces attempts to rehabilitate young Americans – to pull them back from brink of radicalization – before they violate any criminal statutes.

“What [IS] is doing, what they are telling our kids is that America is at war with Islam and you as a Muslim will never be respected in America,” Al-Marayati says. “That’s the lure.”

US law-enforcement tactics have tended to reinforce that message.

What’s necessary, Al-Marayati says, is to take action to foster a strong American-Muslim identity, a sense of pride and dignity and purpose robust enough to withstand Islamic State propaganda.

Offering families an alternative to ISIS or prison

In addition, he says, Safe Spaces is designed to create a safe zone for intervention to help save American children not just from recruiters with the IS group, but also from the US criminal justice system.

“Instead of calling the FBI, you can call a mental health expert or a social services worker, or a religious counselor,” Al-Marayati says. “In other words, we provide resources to the father or the mother or the sister or the friend or the mentor and they would know who to turn to for help so that you can try to rehabilitate the person.”

Although there are a few isolated intervention projects operating in the US, there is no systematic and comprehensive program

“It can’t just be a law enforcement answer,” says Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, and a former official with the US government’s National Counterterrorism Center.

“If you are a parent you are left with a very difficult choice,” Professor Hughes says. “Do you watch your kid radicalize to violence and hope it is just a phase that they grow out of, but then you risk that they jump on a plane [to Turkey and Syria]? Or do you call the FBI?”

“That is not an acceptable answer for loved ones of those who are radicalizing to violence,” Hughes says.

October 7th, 2015

lljadw

NO :Muslims have respect only for force and the willingness to use it .

Carter failed to answer when Iran occupied the US embassy and US lost a lot of credit

When Kadaffi became insolent,Reagan fired some missiles and the US regained respect .

immediately after 9/11,the Muslims condemned the act of terror,because they feared the US answer,but when US was delaying its reply and the reply was less than weak, they all despised the US

And what Obama is doing makes a laughing stock of the US .

And the Soviets also had respect for the US : why did they not invade Western Europe ? Mainly because they knew that the US would nuke them .

If in 1953 Obama was president, we would have WWIII.

--

October 7th, 2015

lljadw

Quote:

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

So the ends justify the means?

finally you get it .

October 7th, 2015

I3BrigPvSk

Quote:

Originally Posted by lljadw

finally you get it .

So every means available to the society shall be used to fight them? Do you seriously think that is a good idea?

October 8th, 2015

Tuan

Quote:

Originally Posted by lljadw

NO :Muslims have respect only for force and the willingness to use it .

Carter failed to answer when Iran occupied the US embassy and US lost a lot of credit

When Kadaffi became insolent,Reagan fired some missiles and the US regained respect .

immediately after 9/11,the Muslims condemned the act of terror,because they feared the US answer,but when US was delaying its reply and the reply was less than weak, they all despised the US

And what Obama is doing makes a laughing stock of the US .

And the Soviets also had respect for the US : why did they not invade Western Europe ? Mainly because they knew that the US would nuke them .

If in 1953 Obama was president, we would have WWIII.

Russia has no geostrategic reason to invade Western Europe like it did so in the Crimean Peninsula region and its proximities where Russia’s only warm water naval base Sevastopol is, or Crimea for that matter, which serves as a ‘choke point’ to and from the Sea of Azov.

If Western allies threatened Russia’s supremacy or sovereignty in its own backyard just like during the Cuban missile crisis, where erstwhile USSR docked and aimed its missiles at US; either one of them will try to push back, won’t they?

Another similar analogy is that India has long feared China's role in building outposts around its periphery. In a recent essay, an Indian commentator wrote that the fusion of China's economic and military interests "risk turning Sri Lanka into India's Cuba" -- a reference to how the Soviet Union courted Fidel Castro's Cuba right on the United States' doorstep.

Having said that, I agree with your point about Obama’s laughable foreign policy because he has many cards but he doesn’t play them well, whereas Putin has only few cards and he plays them very well.

How can the mess in Syria possibly be worse?
Almost have of Syrians are displaced and about half of those are wandering around Europe, ISIS are not showing signs of weakening and the "friendly" rebels are not showing signs of winning.

How much longer do you think we as in the West could just go around bombing random targets and hoping something positive was going to come of it?

I don't like Assad but he is there and has a functioning government, military and is slightly less distastful than ISIS so if destroying ISIS means leaving Assad there then so be it.

As Churchill once said

Quote:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

October 13th, 2015

JOC

[QUOTE=MontyB;69765
How much longer do you think we as in the West could just go around bombing random targets and hoping something positive was going to come of it?[/QUOTE]

What's this nonsense about the west bombing random targets? The trouble is the west uses a very limited bombing campaign against ISIS as such can only produce limited damages.

October 13th, 2015

I3BrigPvSk

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontyB

How can the mess in Syria possibly be worse?
Almost have of Syrians are displaced and about half of those are wandering around Europe, ISIS are not showing signs of weakening and the "friendly" rebels are not showing signs of winning.

How much longer do you think we as in the West could just go around bombing random targets and hoping something positive was going to come of it?

I don't like Assad but he is there and has a functioning government, military and is slightly less distastful than ISIS so if destroying ISIS means leaving Assad there then so be it.

As Churchill once said

I have been thinking in lines like this as well. Assad is the best option to get stability in Syria. The major problem is ISIS and similar groups and they need to go without creating a power vacuum and a failed state a la Somalia.

The first priority is the get rid off ISIS, and it doesn't matter who does it.

Assad might be dealt with later, maybe in the similar way as what happened to the military and political leadership after the wars and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.